© 2015, IJCSMC All Rights Reserved
262
IJCSMC, Vol. 4, Issue. 1, January 2015, pg.262 – 269
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Impact of CBR, FTP Traffic Patterns and Varying node
density on Performance of Routing Protocols in MANETs
Subodh Kumar*
1, G.S. Agrawal
1, Sudhir Kumar Sharma
21
Institute of Computer Applications, Mangalayatan University, Beswan, Aligarh-U.P. (India)
2
School of Engineering & Technology, Jaipur National University, Jaipur-Raj (India)
*1
Abstract:
An ad hoc network is a collection of wireless mobile nodes forming a temporary network without the use of any preexisting topology, network infrastructure, or centralized administration. Every node in ad hoc network acts as a router, work as hop and forward data packets for other nodes. Routing is the key challenge in mobile ad hoc networks and challenge becomes more difficult and complicated when the type of traffic patterns and size of network changed. The main issue is to compare the existing routing protocol and finding the best one as in the different type of environment and traffic scenarios these protocols gives varying results. The scope of this study is to test routing performance of three different routing protocols (AODV, DSDV, and Dymo) with respect to CBR and FTP traffic pattern. The Random Waypoint mobility model was used for mobility generation. The QualNet 5.0.2 simulator has been used to conduct the simulation. Performance analysis of AODV, DSR and Dymo is evaluated based on Average end to end delay(s), Average Jitters(s), and throughput (bits/s) in Mobile ad hoc networks.
Keywords: MANETs, Routing Protocols, RWP mobility model, QualNet 5.0.2 network simulator.
Introduction:
© 2015, IJCSMC All Rights Reserved
263
(Fig1. Mobile Ad-hoc Network)
Related work:
Several researchers have done the performance comparison of Ad hoc routing protocols with different network performance parameters. Also they have used different simulators for this purpose.
Most of the related work available in the literature of MANET includes its challenges and applications as it directs the future of this technology [1, 2, 3, 4]. In [5] the authors compared the CBR performance in different mobile scenarios under random way point mobility model. In their performance analysis, they used only two performance metrics drop ratio and end-to-end delay. QualNet network simulator was used in their simulation with topology of 500m * 500m and simulation time of 200s. They applied different speeds, pause time and traffic pattern in their simulation. They founded that as the number of connection is increased, end-to-end delay increases in DSDV. In their paper they founded that AODV outperform DSDV in CBR traffic and it’s more stable when mobility is low. They had not represented high mobility scenario in the study.
In [6] the impact of Cbr and Ftp traffic patterns on the performance of Aodv, Dsr and Wrp routing protocols in MANET were evaluated. The simulation results of this study indicated that AODV perform very well as compare to DSR and WRP for both traffic pattern CBR and FTP. They also found that the performance of AODV is higher with FTP traffic pattern as compare to CBR.
In [7] the authors evaluated the performance of proactive routing protocols, DSDV and reactive protocol, AODV with CBR traffic. They used RWPM to analyze the behavior of these protocols. They have used throughput, normalized routing load, average end-to-end delay matrices in the study. The simulation results indicated that the protocols they used in their simulation have distance vector characteristics in common but their performance differs with mobility because of the way each protocol works.
The current trends as mentioned by some authors in this field suggest the researchers to study the role of MANET in the evolution of future wireless technologies [8, 9].
Routing Protocols:
© 2015, IJCSMC All Rights Reserved
264
Performance Metrics
Different performance metrics are used in the evaluation of routing protocols. They represent different characteristics of the overall network performance [6]. In this report, we evaluate two metrics used in our comparisons to study their effect on the overall network performance. The following performance matrices are used to evaluate the performance of routing protocols:
i. Average End-to-End Delay
Average End-to-End performance metrics is used to measure the time taken by a packet to travel across a network from a source node to the destination node.
ii. Average Jitter
Average jitter is a performance characteristics used to measure deviation from true periodicity eventually of inactivity in packet across a specific network.
iii.Throughput
Throughput is measured in terms of successful delivery of data packet within the threshold time. Mathematically,
Random Way Point Mobility Model
Mobility model [13] emulates the real life movement of mobile nodes with respect to their location, velocity and direction of motion as a function of time. In this study Random Way Point mobility mode have used. Random Way Point (RWP) [14] model is a commonly used synthetic model for node mobility in Ad Hoc networks. It is an elementary model which describes the movement pattern of independent nodes in simple terms. The characteristics of RWP are briefly summarized below:
i. Each node moves along a straight line in a zigzag fashion from one waypoint to the next.
ii. The waypoints are uniformly distributed over the deployment area.
iii. The node velocities are randomly selected from a given range.
© 2015, IJCSMC All Rights Reserved
265
(Fig.1Random Way Point Mobility Model)
Simulation Scenario:
The three routing protocols: AODV, DSR, and Dymo were simulated to evaluate their performance in accordance with CBR, FTP traffic patterns and varying node density using Random way point mobility model on QualNet 5.0.2 network simulator. The wireless network consists of node density 20, 40, 80, 120 and 150 which are distributed randomly in terrain size of 1000mx1000m. The data packet size is of 2048 bytes used. The simulation time is 220sec.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this section, the performance metrics are used for measuring the performance of AODV, DSR and Dymo routing protocol. The simulation results are shown in the form of graph that represents (i) Throughput (bits/s) (ii) Average End to End Delay (s) and (iii) Average-Jitter(s)
(i)Average Throughput of CBR and FTP traffic patterns with Varying Node Density
© 2015, IJCSMC All Rights Reserved
266
(Fig.2 Throughput Vs No. of Nodes for CBR Traffic)
(Fig.3 Throughput Vs No. of Nodes for FTP Traffic) 0
20000 40000 60000 80000 100000
20 40 80 120 150
No of Nodes (CBR Traffic)
AODV
DSR
Dymo
Throughput (bits/s)
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 180000 200000
20 40 80 120 150
No of Nodes (FTP Traffic)
AODV
DSR
Dymo
© 2015, IJCSMC All Rights Reserved
267
(Fig. 4 Comparison of CBR and FTP Traffic Throughput)
(ii). Average Jitter(s): The figure 4 shows the graph of AODV, DSR and Dymo routing protocols average jitter. The DSR is showing highest average jitter in comparison of both AODV and Dymo routing protocol.
(Fig.5 Average Jitter(s) for AODV, DSR and Dymo)
(ii) Average End-to-End Delay: Figure 5 shows the graph of AODV, DSR and Dymo routing protocol for average end-to-end delay. End-to-end delay includes the delay in the send buffer, the delay in the interface queue, the bandwidth contention delay at the MAC, and the propagation delay. The DSR routing protocol shows the highest average end-to-end delay in comparison of AODV and Dymo routing protocol.
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 180000 200000
20 40 80 120 150
No of Nodes
AODV_CBR
DSR_CBR
Dymo_CBR
AODV_FTP
DSR_FTP
Dymo_FTP
Throughput (bits/s)
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
AODV DSR Dymo
Average Jitter (s)
© 2015, IJCSMC All Rights Reserved
268
(Fig.6 Average End-to-End Delay(s) for AODV, DSR and Dymo)
Conclusion:
From the above analysis it can be concluded that if MANET is to be setup than the selection of routing protocol must be done very carefully. As the AODV and DSR both perform significantly well in case of CBR traffic while DSR is not showing good results for FTP traffic. Overall AODV gives higher performance in both cases in comparison of DSR and Dymo routing protocols. AODV perform better in case of FTP traffic than CBR traffic. Dymo shows low average-end-to-end delay and average jitter rate in comparison of AODV and DSR. Overall it can be concluded that if MANET is need to be setup for large terrain size, then AODV must be prefer due to its optimum performance in both type of traffic patterns.
References:
[1] Imrich Chlamtac, Marco Conti, Jennifer J-N Liu, “Mobile Ad Hoc Networking-Imperatives and Challenges”, Elsevier, 2003, 13-64.
[2] Priyanka Goyal, Vinti Parmar, Rahul Rishi, “MANET: Vulnerabilities, Challenges, Attacks, Applications”,
International Journal of Computational Engineering & Management, Vol. 11, January 2011, 32-37.
[3] Jiazi YI, “A Survey on the Applications of MANET”, Polytech’ Nantes, February 2008.
[4] A Rahim, I Ahmed, Z S Khan, M Sher, M Shoaib, A Javed, R Mahmood, “A Comparative Study of Mobile
and Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks”, International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering, Vol. 02, No. 04,
November 2009. 195-197.
[5] E. Mahdipour, E. Aminian, M. Torabi, M. Zare, “CBR Performance Evaluation over AODV and DSDV in RW Mobility Model,” ICCAE '09. Int. Conf., pp. 238-242, 2009.
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
AODV DSR Dymo
© 2015, IJCSMC All Rights Reserved
269
[6] S. Davinder, G. Ravika, N. Ram, “Impact of Cbr and Ftp Traffic Patterns on the Performance of Aodv, Dsr and Wrp Routing Protocols in Manet”, IJIET, Vol. 3 Issue 1, ISSN: 2319 – 1058, pp.306-314, October , 2013.
[7] S. M. Said, I. Emary, S. Kadim, ”comparative study between the performance of proactive and reactive mobile ad hoc networks (MANET) routing protocols with varying mobility,” Scientific Research and Essays, vol. 6(6), pp. 1256-1274, 2011.
[8] G. Vijaya Kumar, Y Vasudev Reddyr, Dr. M. Nagendra, “Current Research Work on Routing Protocols for
MANET: A Literature Survey”, International Journal on Computer Science and Engineering, Vol. 02, No. 03,
2010, 706-713.
[9] Jun-Zhao Sun, “Mobile Ad Hoc Networking: An Essential Technology for Pervasive Computing”, InfoTech
and Info-net, 2001. Proceedings. ICII 2001- Beijing.2001 International conference, 2001, Vol. No. 03, 316-321.
[10] E. Royer and C. K. Toh, “A Review of Current Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks,” IEEE Personal Communications, April 1999.
[11] K.Jeya Kumar and R.S.Rajesh,” Performance Analysis of MANET Routing Protocols in Different Mobility Models”, IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and Network 22 Security, VOL.9 No.2, pp. 22-29, February 2009.
[12] P.Manickam, T.Guru Baskar, M.Girija and Dr. D.Manimegalai, “Performance Comparisons of Routing Protocols in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks”, International Journal of Wireless & Mobile Networks (IJWMN) Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 98-106, February 2011.
[13] Tracy Camp, Jeff Boleng, Vanessa Davies, “A Survey of Mobility Models for Ad Hoc Network Research”, in Proc. Wireless Communication & Mobile Computing (WCMC): Special issue on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking: Research, Trends and Applications, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 483-502, 2002.
